cooperation
= we give up time we could be devoting to other purposes, we invest cognitive or physical effort, and we may also contribute financially
evolution of cooperation
- capacity for cooperation can evolve within a population
- nice rules begin by cooperating –> were preyed upon by nasty strategies
- nasty rules begin by defecting –> died out when there was no prey left
- most successful strategy tit-for-tat
- norm stabilising mechanisms: diffuse costly punishment + reputational mechanisms facilitate trust, fairness, cooperation
- -> with increasing community size: less reputation, more punishment to maintain fairness
factors influencing cooperation
- consideration of others
- less cooperation when known that other would cooperate
- less cooperation when perspective taking & more consideration
- thinking harder about a task reduces cooperation (more likely to behave fairly when less capacity for thinking)
factors influencing cooperation
- empathy
- promotes prosocial behaviour
- empathetic failures: when individual could feel empathy but doesn’t due to salient social factors
- influenced by norms and emotions before encounter, by your personality
- might be insufficient to produce pro-social behaviour
factors influencing cooperation
- fear
1) fear of being taken for sucker (being taken advantage of)
2. fear of being punished (being excluded for being egoistic)
- once fear is removed people behave in greedy fashion -> greed has stronger effects than fear
factors influencing cooperation
- social value orientation
- individualist: maximise own gains (same number of each type)
- prosocial: maximise joint gain, equality in outcomes (most upward, fewest downward counterfactuals –> more cooperation)
- competitors: maximise relative gain (= difference between one’s own and the other’s outcome) (reversed pattern as compared to prosocial)
- values can be learned
factors influencing cooperation
- trust
- trust leads to increased cooperation
- -> depends on reputation of person
- -> when played against same player
- emotions can affect trust (therefore cooperation) –> anger, happiness & gratitude
factors influencing cooperation
- generosity
- noise can ruin successful ti-for-tat
- can be solved by adding generosity or forgiveness (TIT+)
factors influencing cooperation
- communication
- increases cooperation
- -> promotes group solidarity
- -> allows expression of commitment
- can help people with low-trust disposition
- can eliminate noise effects
factors influencing cooperation
- emotions - appraisal theory
= emotions are adaptive responses elicited based on how an agent evaluates its situation
(1) appraisal –> emotions –> (2) action
1) appraisals = input of emotional experience; cognitive antecedents to experience of emotion
- occur in response to external stimuli, thoughts; are directly related to motivational goals of the agent
2) action tendency = behavioural output; adaptive responses to appraisal
factors influencing cooperation
- emotions - guilt
1) appraisal that one has failed to live up to the expectations of a relationship partner
2) reparative action tendencies
- can encourage trust & cooperation
- brain areas guilt averse:
- -> activity in insula, ACC, DLPFC, TPJ (yellow) –> processing negative affect, salience, cognitive control, theory of mind
- brain areas selfish:
- -> activity in VMPFC, DMPFC (blue) –> reward processing, mentalising
- -> players have competing motivations to maximise material payoffs + minimise aversive guilt
factors influencing cooperation
- emotions - anger
1) appraisal that progress toward a goal is blocked, social/moral norm has been transgressed
2) punishment, revenge action tendencies
- frustration anger model: act on your frustration (due to worse/actual payoff than expected outcome)
- threat of punishment can ensure a cooperative outcome
- brain areas magnitude of deviation from expectation (to actual offer)
- -> activity in dACC, anterior insula –> error-monitoring and emotion
moralistic punishment
= punish non-cooperators
- fosters group cooperation: punishment of non-cooperators motivates them to cooperate
antisocial punishment
= punish high cooperators
- do-gooder derogation = people who help others get criticised, ridiculed for their efforts
- prevents escalation of generosity
x destabilises group cooperation, reduces the beneficial effects of moralistic punishment
x risky tactic as it can make oneself look bad if done poorly
antisocial punishment
- theories
- normative theory = punish deviations of group norms (no matter which direction)
- biological markets theory (Barclay) = we choose partners for cooperative interactions so we try to outbid each other in order to be chosen (= competitive helping)
- anti-social punishment function as way to prevent one’s competitors from gaining relative reputation, make oneself look worse by comparison
- -> do good but not too good
factors influencing cooperation
- education/economy students
- economy students: keep more money for themselves; less adherence to norms of fairness; in open-ended questions greater self-focus; more positive attitude towards greed
- Homo Economicus not concerned with others’ welfare
- self-interest: aims to increase personal well-being; motivation to drive most economic behaviour
- greed: extreme self-interest
factors influencing cooperation
- wealth/higher social class
- higher social class: more unethical decision-making; more likely to break law while driving; take valued goods from others; lie in negotiations; cheat to increase chances of winning a prize; endorse unethical behaviour at work
- -> more favourable attitude towards greed; feeling of entitlement and inattention to consequences of behaviour for other’s; goal-focused; more likely from economic background
cultural differences
- payoff to cooperation: cooperation stronger in societies where there is more cooperation with non-immediate kin
- market integration: more cooperation in societies where there is greater trading via markets
- collectivistic cultures: more inclined to see others as out-group members –> more anti-social punishment
game theory
= analysis of interaction between rational agents that share common knowledge of rules
- common knowledge of rationality: assume rationality of other players; everybody is rational and everybody knows that everyone is rational
- -> people rarely act 100% rational
1) players - who is part of the game?
2) rules - what are the rules of the game?
3) payoffs/outcomes - what are the possible outcomes?
behavioural game theory
= study of how people actually behave in interactive situations
nash equilibrium
= situationist where no one has a unilateral (= only one deviating) incentive to change strategy
games
= interactions between 2 or more agents, each of whom have 2 or more strategies available (which are associated with payoffs that depend on the action of the other person)
games
- prisoner’s dilemma
- nash equilibrium: joint defection
- only one equilibrium point (in other cases there can be more): mutual defection seen as dominant strategy
- -> not ideal but best they can get if they are both rational actors pursuing their self-interest
- reality: people cooperate more often than game theory predicts
games
- public goods game
- best collectively rational strategy/group interests: contribute
- best individual strategy/own interests: not contribute
